Github user viirya commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-66455203
Anyway, still thanks for your comments and time to replying this.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Github user viirya commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-66453822
Thanks. But in the end, you still can not provide a rational explanation
for the reason why it fails. At least, it is not convincing for me. :-) Anyway,
still thanks for y
Github user mridulm commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-66451641
I think I did say this will not go into spark at the very begining of my
review :-)
In the assumption that you would want to continue to improve spark IO, I
wanted to
Github user viirya closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enab
Github user viirya commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-66448444
Except for some streams associated with files and network connections, not
all streams should always be closed when you're done with them. That is what I
know. Maybe that
Github user viirya commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-66446898
I do know that `finalize` can close wrapped stream. I did not say it would
not. But It only can if you implement it as that.
There is no such implicit contract as
Github user mridulm commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-66443297
I think you are missing the point - we should not rely on specific
implementation details on whether it is currently done or not - that leads to
brittle codebase. finaliz
Github user viirya commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-66435647
I agree with you that the saved operation here is a cheap one. :-) However
the problem you mentioned would not happen with current version of
`DeserializationStream`.
Github user mridulm commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-66426107
Hmm, might be tricky to explain if you do not have sufficient context, let
me give it a shot.
a) Streams in java are not usually multiplexed - unless explicitly stated
Github user viirya commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-66419204
Thanks. However, I can not see why this is a broken change. Please let me
know where it causes problems as it seems to pass tests now.
In fact, this PR does not ma
Github user mridulm commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-66407791
-1 This is broken change for multiple reasons - finalize of out of scope
variable can trigger close of underlying fd, potential state issue with vars
not being null when
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-65745765
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/24
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-65745761
[Test build #24164 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/24164/consoleFull)
for PR 3600 at commit
[`eb93959`](https://gith
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-65741359
[Test build #24164 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/24164/consoleFull)
for PR 3600 at commit
[`eb93959`](https://githu
Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3600#issuecomment-65740950
Jenkins, this is ok to test.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not ha
15 matches
Mail list logo
